East Region Fan Poll

[theoriginalupstate]

Actually, I don't want the Top 25 voters to pay any credence to the f'ed up way Division III chooses its at-large teams.

Could you elaborate on that or are you just being sarcastic?

[Pat Coleman]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

[pg04]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

I think this is a good way to go about it. 

[Bombers798891]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

Here's a thought though: If they don't pay attention to the at-large selections, should they pay attention to the results come playoff time?

For example, I remember in 2001, when you guys projected Menlo to get in the playoffs over IC. It seems like you're saying (and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that you wouldn't want voters to say "Ithaca made it but Menlo didn't, so I should vote for IC over Menlo." But IC then won two playoff games, so how do those count? Would it be a "Fruit of the poisonous tree" kind of situation?

Since the selection process is, as you say, "f'ed up," what does that do to the results obtained from said process? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious

[Frank Rossi]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

Here's a thought though: If they don't pay attention to the at-large selections, should they pay attention to the results come playoff time?

For example, I remember in 2001, when you guys projected Menlo to get in the playoffs over IC. It seems like you're saying (and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that you wouldn't want voters to say "Ithaca made it but Menlo didn't, so I should vote for IC over Menlo." But IC then won two playoff games, so how do those count? Would it be a "Fruit of the poisonous tree" kind of situation?

Since the selection process is, as you say, "f'ed up," what does that do to the results obtained from said process? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious

When we're about to put together our first ballot in the preseason, Pat sends us a spreadsheet with most teams that had received votes at the end of the prior year and any teams which he felt through Kickoff should be on our radars.  The spreadsheet includes the prior year's record, the number of returning starters on each side of the ball and the teams to which the team lost the prior year.  It's as good a reference as anything to help move teams around.  My guess is that carryover voters will use their final ballot from prior years as starter ballots before using the spreadsheet and their own knowledge to move teams up/down/in/out of the poll for the preseason ballot.

As far as playoff wins go, the final ballot each year comes out after the Stagg Bowl, and you'll see teams that outperformed their ranking, if any, jump in that final ballot.  Just making the tourney doesn't have much effect on anything -- wins are necessary historically.  This is how SJF became a regular in the poll for a couple years after their Final 4 visit.  It's also how Hobart started in the poll at 15th last year.  So, while playoff wins don't dictate the preseason poll per se, they ARE influential since the final poll each year is probably most voters' starting point the next year.

[Bombers798891]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

Here's a thought though: If they don't pay attention to the at-large selections, should they pay attention to the results come playoff time?

For example, I remember in 2001, when you guys projected Menlo to get in the playoffs over IC. It seems like you're saying (and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that you wouldn't want voters to say "Ithaca made it but Menlo didn't, so I should vote for IC over Menlo." But IC then won two playoff games, so how do those count? Would it be a "Fruit of the poisonous tree" kind of situation?

Since the selection process is, as you say, "f'ed up," what does that do to the results obtained from said process? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious

When we're about to put together our first ballot in the preseason, Pat sends us a spreadsheet with most teams that had received votes at the end of the prior year and any teams which he felt through Kickoff should be on our radars.  The spreadsheet includes the prior year's record, the number of returning starters on each side of the ball and the teams to which the team lost the prior year.  It's as good a reference as anything to help move teams around.  My guess is that carryover voters will use their final ballot from prior years as starter ballots before using the spreadsheet and their own knowledge to move teams up/down/in/out of the poll for the preseason ballot.

As far as playoff wins go, the final ballot each year comes out after the Stagg Bowl, and you'll see teams that outperformed their ranking, if any, jump in that final ballot.  Just making the tourney doesn't have much effect on anything -- wins are necessary historically.  This is how SJF became a regular in the poll for a couple years after their Final 4 visit.  It's also how Hobart started in the poll at 15th last year.  So, while playoff wins don't dictate the preseason poll per se, they ARE influential since the final poll each year is probably most voters' starting point the next year.

Makes sense...thanks for the response

[union89]

Not being sarcastic -- I am saying I don't want somebody to look at the at-large selections and say, well, Washington and Jefferson made it but North Central didn't, therefore I should vote for W&J before I vote for North Central.

Just to use a historical reference.

Here's a thought though: If they don't pay attention to the at-large selections, should they pay attention to the results come playoff time?

For example, I remember in 2001, when you guys projected Menlo to get in the playoffs over IC. It seems like you're saying (and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that you wouldn't want voters to say "Ithaca made it but Menlo didn't, so I should vote for IC over Menlo." But IC then won two playoff games, so how do those count? Would it be a "Fruit of the poisonous tree" kind of situation?

Since the selection process is, as you say, "f'ed up," what does that do to the results obtained from said process? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious

When we're about to put together our first ballot in the preseason, Pat sends us a spreadsheet with most teams that had received votes at the end of the prior year and any teams which he felt through Kickoff should be on our radars.  The spreadsheet includes the prior year's record, the number of returning starters on each side of the ball and the teams to which the team lost the prior year.  It's as good a reference as anything to help move teams around.  My guess is that carryover voters will use their final ballot from prior years as starter ballots before using the spreadsheet and their own knowledge to move teams up/down/in/out of the poll for the preseason ballot.

As far as playoff wins go, the final ballot each year comes out after the Stagg Bowl, and you'll see teams that outperformed their ranking, if any, jump in that final ballot.  Just making the tourney doesn't have much effect on anything -- wins are necessary historically.  This is how SJF became a regular in the poll for a couple years after their Final 4 visit.  It's also how Hobart started in the poll at 15th last year.  So, while playoff wins don't dictate the preseason poll per se, they ARE influential since the final poll each year is probably most voters' starting point the next year.

Makes sense...thanks for the response

Should Pat be sending out that info??  I think not.  Pat runs D3.com and therefor has an obvious interest in the poll.  Pollsters should go about finding their own information and gauge the criteria they use individually.  If everyone is given the same 'packet', this will undoubtedly direct voters down a certain path.  If Pat has faith in each pollster to ask them to be involved, he should have the same faith that they should do their own research and present an unbiased poll.  By sending the exact same info to everyone, don't you run the danger of a biased product?

[Bombers798891]

Should Pat be sending out that info??  I think not.  Pat runs D3.com and therefor has an obvious interest in the poll.  Pollsters should go about finding their own information and gauge the criteria they use individually.  If everyone is given the same 'packet', this will undoubtedly direct voters down a certain path.  If Pat has faith in each pollster to ask them to be involved, he should have the same faith that they should do their own research and present an unbiased poll.  By sending the exact same info to everyone, don't you run the danger of a biased product?

No because based on Frank's response, Pat's simply providing factual information, and doing so in a way that saves everyone a lot of time. Does it matter if Pat gives them a packet of the returning starters or if they go and call all the SID's or go to dozens of websites? It's not like he's encouraging them to vote one way or another. He's just conglomerating all the information. I mean, how much in-depth research can pollsters be expected to do? This isn't a paid gig for these people and, as we've pointed out, it's not like the polls are important to what happens on the field. I don't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing

[Frank Rossi]

Also, it's not Pat determining which teams deserve to be on that list.  It's predominately based on the prior year's final poll (including "Others Receiving Votes") and anything that raises eyebrows from "Kickoff" interviews done to that point, from what I've seen.  It's the voters who determined who appears on that list moreso than anyone.  In my six weeks of voting, I've never felt swayed or influenced by Pat or anyone else.  I also felt free to go off the board and pick teams that hadn't received votes the prior year in forming my first ballot.  Every voter has that ability and right.  

[Frank Rossi]

By the way, U89, what "interest in the poll" does Pat have by running the site?  That makes no sense -- there will always be 25 teams and 25 voters in the poll.  He has no dog in the seasonal fight.  Care to explain that odd point?

[union89]

By the way, U89, what "interest in the poll" does Pat have by running the site?  That makes no sense -- there will always be 25 teams and 25 voters in the poll.  He has no dog in the seasonal fight.  Care to explain that odd point?

Not odd at all....Pat takes pride in the D3 poll....as well he should.  Pat also routinely pokes fun at competing polls like AFCA and Don Hansen (which no longer exists, to my knowledge).

Why so defensive?

[Pat Coleman]

Here's a thought though: If they don't pay attention to the at-large selections, should they pay attention to the results come playoff time?

Yes, because those games are actually played. But I wouldn't knock a team in the national poll for not making the national playoffs just because regional criteria suggest that perhaps they should.

[Pat Coleman]

Should Pat be sending out that info??  I think not.  Pat runs D3.com and therefor has an obvious interest in the poll.  Pollsters should go about finding their own information and gauge the criteria they use individually.  If everyone is given the same 'packet', this will undoubtedly direct voters down a certain path.  If Pat has faith in each pollster to ask them to be involved, he should have the same faith that they should do their own research and present an unbiased poll.  By sending the exact same info to everyone, don't you run the danger of a biased product?

This model worked wonders when I was at Baseball Weekly and we ran the Division I baseball coaches' poll. I'm not concerned. Leaving 25 voters to do their own research would lead to a pretty piss-poor preseason poll because who has the time to do all that work? All I do is provide the baseline so that voters are educated about what is outside their area. They still are free to use their brains.

I think perhaps you don't know how difficult it is to rank 25 teams of 238. It's not like a regional poll. I can't ask them to spend as much time on it as you seem to expect. They all have teams to coach, games to cover, stories to write, news releases to send out, etc.

[Frank Rossi]

Why so defensive?

Because you went on an offensive out of nowhere to undermine Pat and his poll methodology -- he's doing nothing but assisting voters without influencing the poll.  I may not agree with some of the team placements inside the poll itself, but that's the voters placing them there, not Pat.  And that's why there are 25 voters (6 from each region plus Pat) -- to even out any regional influence or bias that could exist in individual ballots.  It's a well-run machine.

[union89]

Should Pat be sending out that info??  I think not.  Pat runs D3.com and therefor has an obvious interest in the poll.  Pollsters should go about finding their own information and gauge the criteria they use individually.  If everyone is given the same 'packet', this will undoubtedly direct voters down a certain path.  If Pat has faith in each pollster to ask them to be involved, he should have the same faith that they should do their own research and present an unbiased poll.  By sending the exact same info to everyone, don't you run the danger of a biased product?

This model worked wonders when I was at Baseball Weekly and we ran the Division I baseball coaches' poll. I'm not concerned. Leaving 25 voters to do their own research would lead to a pretty piss-poor preseason poll because who has the time to do all that work? All I do is provide the baseline so that voters are educated about what is outside their area. They still are free to use their brains.

I think perhaps you don't know how difficult it is to rank 25 teams of 238. It's not like a regional poll. I can't ask them to spend as much time on it as you seem to expect. They all have teams to coach, games to cover, stories to write, news releases to send out, etc.

Fair enough.....thanks for your rationale.